Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

I'm going to have to say this: War WAS heroic and civilized before the appearance of the industrialized war. That was the fundamental reason for the deep difference between the officers and the rank-and-file soldiers of the early Japanese army.

I'm going to have to say this: War WAS heroic and civilized before the appearance of the industrialized war. That was the fundamental reason for the deep difference between the officers and the rank-and-file soldiers of the early Japanese army.

Um, this has to be one of the worst argument I have heard...

In pre-industrial area, we also had massacres, mass rape, genocide etc. Try reading some of the Christian crusaders marching on the holy land, Roman conquests, Chinese emperor's mass extermination of enemy tribes etc. It is the advent of guns and truly brutal murder on a industrial scale when people finally realized "holy crap we are gonna wipe out mankind if we keep doing this"

And the Japanese was pretty barbaric all around, many of them thought it was honorable to grant their enemies a quick death (I.E execution of Chinese/American prisoners) or honorable for Chinese/Korean women to be their camp whores.

Except the rest of the world didn't quite share that death "warrior" culture.

And the Japanese was pretty barbaric all around, many of them thought it was honorable to grant their enemies a quick death (I.E execution of Chinese/American prisoners) or honorable for Chinese/Korean women to be their camp whores.

Yeah, people only remember the third time Japan invaded China and Korea.

However, WW2 was actually the third time that Japan had invaded Korea.

It happened first around 600 AD, and neither side of the conflict really had the ability to do any damage to the other side.

However, the second time Japan invaded, in 1592, was much, much, worse than either the first time or the third time (Which is saying something because WW2 was pretty bad). After the 7 year conflict, over half a million Koreans were dead and 95% of Korea's material history was destroyed. After the war ended, the Japanese brought back the noses of 50,000 Koreans and made a small hill out of them, which they buried. This monument, known as the Mimizuka (literally ear mound or ear tomb, along the way I guess someone forgot the noses were ears) can still be visited today.

So if you want to read about the most brutal, horrible, depressing and atrocious war ever, read about this invasion know in Korean as the Imjin War and in English is usually referred to as Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea.

Yeah, people only remember the third time Japan invaded China and Korea.

However, WW2 was actually the third time that Japan had invaded Korea.

It happened first around 600 AD, and neither side of the conflict really had the ability to do any damage to the other side.

However, the second time Japan invaded, in 1592, was much, much, worse than either the first time or the third time (Which is saying something because WW2 was pretty bad). After the 7 year conflict, over half a million Koreans were dead and 95% of Korea's material history was destroyed. After the war ended, the Japanese brought back the noses of 50,000 Koreans and made a small hill out of them, which they buried. This monument, known as the Mimizuka (literally ear mound or ear tomb, along the way I guess someone forgot the noses were ears) can still be visited today.

So if you want to read about the most brutal, horrible, depressing and atrocious war ever, read about this invasion know in Korean as the Imjin War and in English is usually referred to as Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea.

And then there were the huns invasion of Europe. If you don't surrender, they butcher all the mens and boys when they take over the town, then gang rape the women. If you do surrender, they only gang-rape/pillage the place.

Whoever believed sword/ax combat was honorable or civilized must never actually studied history.

Dang it Avalon, you c(XD LOL)-block Shirou and Reinforce, but don't protect his mind in other ways? What is wrong, you woman?
Friendship, be made! Magical power, gather! Starlight Breaker.... this world!

So if you want to read about the most brutal, horrible, depressing and atrocious war ever, read about this invasion know in Korean as the Imjin War and in English is usually referred to as Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea.

Wait, are you actually saying that sending allied troops is an invasion?

Well they were allied with one Korean Kingdom (Baekje) fighting against another (Silla, which was itself allied with Tang China), so technically you are right that it was not a proper invasion as Korea was not a proper political entity at this point.

However, it is popularly called the first invasion of Korea (by some, I didn't invent this term) because of the myth of Empress Jingu who was said to have invaded Korea during her lifetime.

In reality, even though Empress Jingu was a real person, it would have been physically impossible for her to be involved in the Baekje Silla conflict around 660 AD, which was 400 years after she was said to have reigned.

However, it is the mythical association of these two events which has led people to call this event the first Japanese Invasion of Korea.

However, it is popularly called the first invasion of Korea (by some, I didn't invent this term) because of the myth of Empress Jingu who was said to have invaded Korea during her lifetime.

In reality, even though Empress Jingu was a real person, it would have been physically impossible for her to be involved in the Baekje Silla conflict around 660 AD, which was 400 years after she was said to have reigned.

However, it is the mythical association of these two events which has led people to call this event the first Japanese Invasion of Korea.

You know, given that this is the first time I have ever heard of the Battle of Baekgang being called an invasion, I really have to question your sources. Unless you happen to be mixing up the mythical invasion portrayed in the Nihon shoki with the Battle of Baekgang (even when those are completely separate).

You know, given that this is the first time I have ever heard of the Battle of Baekgang being called an invasion, I really have to question your sources. Unless you happen to be mixing up the mythical invasion portrayed in the Nihon shoki with the Battle of Baekgang (even when those are completely separate).

What I'm saying is that there was a historical precedent for conflating the Battle of Baekgang with the mythical invasions of Empress Jingu in the Nihon Shoki and the Kojiki. Though in reality, the Battle of Baekgang had nothing to do with these fictional narratives, it was once very popular (in pre-WW2 Imperial Japan) for historians to make the case that they were one in the same.

This is because during the period of extreme popular nationalism in the early 1900's (before Japan invaded Korea for the second time) groups like the Kokuryukai and the Genyosha were using a wide spectrum of means to encourage the expansion of the Japanese Empire. On the one end, this meant intimidation of government and outright assassination (this is the period of government by assassination in Japan) but on the other end it meant assisting the already extant proliferation of nationalistic historical writing to make the case that there was not only a historical precedent for Japan invading Korea and China but that, in fact, Japan had a historical duty to do so.

Of course their main argument was that Japan had to wipe away the shame of Hideyoshi's defeat after he invaded in 1592. But it was also a tactic of these pre-war historians to conflate the Mythical Invasion of Empress Jingu with Japan's actual involvement in Korea in the mid 5th century. It is certainly inaccurate to call Japan's involvement in Baekje an invasion, or to conflate this event with the "Invasion of Empress Jingu" myth: but you have to remember that the writers of the Nihon Shoki were most likely inspired by these events (which occurred only 60 years before) when they wrote about the mythical Invasion of Empress Jingu. This undoubtedly aided the pre-war Imperial historians in making their connection.

The more important point, that's been implied by what I've said about the Genyosha and the Kokuryukai already, is that these historians were motivated much less by authentic desire to write honestly about Japans history than by their desire to encourage Japanese invasion of Korea and China. Thus, it can only be guessed at to what extent they honestly believed in what they were writing about. Military zeal goes hand in hand with both delusion and deceptiveness so it's hard to say which one is really at play here.

Anyways, this is maybe a confusing explanation and I can't really offer you much in the way of sources. I learned most of this in school ( I'm an East Asian and African History Major) either from hard sources out of the library or from JSTOR. Maybe if you are able to get on JSTOR I could pull up a good JSTOR link for you.

You know, given that this is the first time I have ever heard of the Battle of Baekgang being called an invasion, I really have to question your sources. Unless you happen to be mixing up the mythical invasion portrayed in the Nihon shoki with the Battle of Baekgang (even when those are completely separate).

Honestly, most of true invasions has the invaders setting up some sort of "puppet" governments ( which in some way can legitimately claim the right for local and foreign support). I means i can see where you are coming from, but it's really down to specific debate. And frankly, most of Koreans will rather believe anything relating to Japanese coming over their shores as "invasion". So it's even harder to argue against

And yeah let's talk about sword, or try to put them in context. I thought with only swords, without shield and over-belief on bushido, Japanese medieval army will be steamrolled by pretty much any other countries? Especially with Sun Tzu's Art of War, emphasize on high ground for superior range combat?